tv [untitled] March 14, 2013 7:30pm-8:00pm PDT
presentation at this point. so, directors any thoughts? >> my only thought is that i would like to be presented with options that the team believes would be appropriate to move on, not only options that the team believes would not be appropriate to move on. >> so i understand the team does not want to cut on the rva analysis, again, i do not want to second guess that. so how about being presented with options that get the number down that the team believes would be constructive? >> we actually we are going to present you on this. >> as part of this presentation. just a reminder to everyone, we are on march 25th, we will be looking to present to you is an action item to recommend to allow to give the design team allowing to move ahead for the rva and we have to move on the
rva because the construction documents are due may 31st and the longer we put that off the more expensive this project becomes and it defeats everything that director metcalf is looking to do which is save money. the seconds thing that we are going to come back to you on march 25th. was a recommendation on what to do further with skanka, do we ask the board to allow us to negotiate further? reject the bid? and they will have a recommendation for you then, we are not coming to the board on march 25th, with the recommendation to adopt the reserves and contingencies we can at this point because we need to give web corps times to relook at the whole structural steel, do we repackage everything? do we redesign the steel in some way to be able to give the response that you asked for. so march 25th, would be allowing us to move so that the design team could finish and that would just include the direction on the rva and the direction of what to move forward and that is it for march 25th and changing the
facade from the grass to the metal and we can do that presentation as well. i would ask the board to consider maybe starting our meetings at 9:00, we have a very complex project and i understand, we have never had a time limit for when this board meeting would attend but it appears that most need to leave at noon and i would ask for consideration that we could start earlier, i can start as early as anybody can available and but we really need to start thinking about starting earlier, because there is a lot and it is a huge project and a lot of material and we don't want to keep disappointing the public that we are going to present something and we don't have the time. please allow us some consideration. >> i think that is an important request. any other... i am happy to start the board meetings at 9:00 a.m. if there is no objection, we can certainly. >> and i want to apologize to those of you who are here and not getting to present. >> i also just asked the board members if they can let me know in advance when they have
meetings schedule afterwards so i can give staff a good sense of when our meetings need to end by, these presentations are great actually. i really appreciate the incredible level of detail, but i think that we don't need to go over it orally. i think that it is important for us to see visually. >> i think just to that last point, it would be helpful to get these in advance so that then we have, you know, for us and the public to be able to review and we don't have to go bullet by bullet. i am glad that hear that we are not going to need to try to contemplate a full budget adjustment at the next meeting because we will not be ready for that. what would be helpful in addition to what the previous director's mention, one would be an understanding of what the change process is within the program. i don't know if there is a change board or a configuration board. because it seems like there is a lot of things that have kind of moved along the course of
the program, and it would be helpful for us to understand how those things get vetted and if we could cover that at the next meeting and we seemed to have stopped getting or receiving the monthly reports which was the one thing in writing that they were getting each month. maybe i missed it. i don't feel like i have seen one in a couple of months and that would also help with my understanding of what is happening here. and then, i guess to the point about to what extent the current projections what they are anticipating it sounds like for the steel, the estimate was going up over time and we ended up with something quite a bit above and i think to director metcalf's question what does that mean for the glazing and the other big packages and the other big packages that you referenced are still to come? i guess that it is more than a third and we have big ones that are further out in time and subject to further escalation and out for one of those packages and i am wondering
what comfort level that we should on the estimates now and what we are seeing for at least this one, just the recommendations to cover at the next meeting. >> that is helpful, director could you repeat the first one? because i did not quite catch the first one on the order and the change of the process? >> like to understand what the program's change process is. so how we get to the point where we are needing to authorize additional design budget. >> how we move from one? >> where internally how those decisions are being made to advance to the board? >> okay. >> and we do have a change management, budget change management procedure, that documents exactly how that is done, and the sign-offs and approvals. so we can send you that, procedure in advance. >> perfect, thank you. >> okay. so, i think that that is good. it is a good way to move forward. i do want to say as we move
forward with the entire budget through april and may, if it is that we are just looking at 164 million dollars, it is 164 million dollar gap, i still would like the number to come down more. that is just where i am at today. i actually think that the presentations have been great in explaining why they are the way that they are. but i just... it is a big number for me, still, to swallow. and the last feedback that i just wanted to give is that given how competitive, the construction market is today, i think that we need to be very thoughtful about our rfp process and i think that in years past we could be more thorough and ask the bidders to give very complicated packages, and bids to tj pi, i think that given the current climate that we should think about how we could be competitive in attracting the bidders. i want to commend the staff and i think that the staff is
thorough and this is not, i am not being critical of that, because i actually appreciates that level of ten acity and detail, i just want to be sure that we deliver the project to our city within a budget that works. given the public tlars that are spent on this. we are meeting again on march 25th. >> i am going to keep that time at 9:30. >> has it been publicized yet? >> it has not, so we could make the adjustment. >> it seems to be a shorter meeting. >> it feels like 9:30 works for that one. >> i would suggest nine because we are going to have the presentation by fred on the skin. and maybe some questions. i really would recommend 9:00. there was never, there is nothing written anywhere that this meeting ended at noon, but if that is what the board wishes we need to start earlier. >> we can start at 9:00.
>> i will have a hard stop on monday because i am on a committee in the afternoon so i can have the meeting go past 12:30. >> so we will start at 9:00 a.m. on monday march 25th and do that there after. >> and at least in spring through june. >> so we will actually have to adopt the change of the bi laws and we can call the meetings every month. >> i would rather keep it special meetings for may, april and, may, i think that once we get through, this, through the budget, i think that meeting at 9:30 will be appropriate. >> i don't want to go through changing the by laws. >> okay. >> that would be my preference >> thank you so much. the staff, and thank you so much to board members and if there are no further announcements are discussions the meeting is adjourned.
>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. my name is scott wiener. i'm the chair of the committee. to my right is supervisor jane kim, the committee vice-chair and to my left is supervisor david chiu. sfgtv staff who are recording today's meeting are jessie larson and nona markonian. thank you to sfgtv. ms. miller, are are there any announcements? >> please make sure cell phones and electronic devices are. completed cards [speaker not understood]. items acted upon today will be
on the march 19th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. madam clerk, will you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an ordinance approving exceptions to requirements of the seismic safety loan program under the administrative code and the sslp program regulations, regarding a $2,379,464 loan for an existing affordable housing project at the hotel isabel located at 1091 mission street. >> thank you. and supervisor kim is the author of this legislation. >> thank you, chair wiener. this is basically -- we are asking for an exception to our seismic safety loan program -- deferred extended loan program. hotelies isabel is one of our affordable housing units here in district 6 on the south of market. currently has 72 units affordable housing and it's owned by the hotel [speaker not understood] a limited partnership with who is general partner is todd koh who is here today and we're just ready to ask for an exemption from the loan to value ratio requirement and other underwriting criteria
set forth in the san francisco administrative code for a number of reasons that i believe the mayor's office of housing can explain in more detail. so, we'd just ask for your support today on this exception . so, we'd like to bring up a staff member of the mayor's office of housing to talk about this in more detail. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lydia ely and i'm a project manager at the mayor's office of housing. as supervisor kim mentioned, we're asking for an exemption from loan to value ratio requirements of the seismic safety loan program. when the city first loaned about a million $800,000 to this project in 1997, the project even at that time, because of existing debt, exceeded the loan to value ratio as required by the sfsd program.
so, they secured that debt with a guarantee -- with a loan guarantee on the property. last year we gave another $700,000 in loan funds from the sflp program to the building for some additional seismic work under the sidewalk which we have not been able to fund in 1997. because of the additional loan amount and because the project now has a new loan with the state, the loan to value ratio was so out of kilter that they had to secure with a loan guarantee on another building that the nonprofit owned which is mendelson house, 30 37 folsom. now the owner wants to refinance mendelson house at the new hud loan and we can't -- we can no longer secure this loan guarantee with that property. so, we're asking to -- we need to remove the deed of trust from mendelson house and by doing so we will be out of compliance with the loan to value ratio requirements.
so, that's what this request is today. : i'm happy to answer any questions about the project itself or the seismic [speaker not understood]. >> i think you need to speak a little bit to the importance of ensuring the affordability of hotel isabel and why we are asking for this exception. >> when it was created by the voters in 1991, it was aimed at market rate housing as well as affordable housing. as you no doubt no, most market rate loans have loan to value requirements that are intended to guarantee the lenders can recoup their investment. in the case of this project and all of our affordable housing projects, what we're really looking to secure here is the 55 year a ability term. -- affordability in our term. that is what we require in all
of our seismic safety and loan program. in this particular case we have achieved that 55-year affordability term and that is really what is of highest value to the city. and the loan to value ratio requirements really are not intended to be imposed on affordable projects. often these projects have multiple layers of debt and their appraised value is limited because they cannot rent to the market. so, the loan to value ratio is not something we typically require at most, but it is a part of the seismic safety loan program. >> and can you also speak to whether you believe there is a financial risk to the city and county by providing this exception? >> well, we will have a deed of trust on the title so we are still in line to -- in case of a default, the city will be made whole. but again, these kind of projects, they tend to refinance every 15 years with housing tax credits or through
other public loan programs. and in many cases we are repaid. in fact, we have another loan with the -- with [speaker not understood] at the end of the month we're hoping to be repaid about $3.6 million on an old loan from 1986. so, i don't believe that there is risk to the city and, in fact, the 55-year term loan will ensure that the long-term benefits to the city beyond the loan to value requirements. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? why don't we open it up for public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on aye tell number 1? please step forward. public comment will be two minutes. ~ item good evening, supervisors. my name is ace washington. and you know i'm just doing my regular routine to city hall today. i'm back and forth. having a look in here.
and i'm supporting -- i go back 27 some years ago. i'm surprised they're still around. i support them wholeheartededly. i'm also here to show a parallel something that is going on. ~ you mentioned about the city hall interest, would they be in debt. william, i'm just showing a parallel of issues like this in my community in western addition and bayview and all these other housing places in which our population is going down, down so significant, you never hear nothing about us here at city hall no more. but my question is to the city about your loans and for these housing and all of these fantastic places, where is my people as a race, where are we going to be staying in these houses? will we be allowed, will we be available, will we be existing in the next two, three, five, 10 years? i see in the paper here how the
city is trumping about how much economically boastful they are with these houses and all these cranes. my question is, what about my baby's baby's -- these kids? i'm 59 years old and i've been around here at city hall over 20, 25 years. : but i have seen a diminishing of the black community dwindling and ain't nobody saying it. i'm saying it because i'm here supporting whats' going on, but this is the first time i can speak here today. so, i just want to keep that on your ears and find out what's going on when the tables are turned. i'd like to see the same advantages for the disadvantaged. >> is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor kim. >> i'd just like to motion to move this with positive recommendation. >> okay, colleagues.
can we do that without objection? without objection, that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, item number 2, please. >> item number 2 is an ordinance amending the planning and administrative codes to correctorers; make language revisions and updates; revise graphics to be consistent with text; amend fees to be charged for certain kinds of applications and appeals; clarify the meaning of certain planning code sections; amend the zoning map to remove the incorrect chinese hospital special use district designation from assessor's block no. 0192, lot no. 041; and adopt findings, including findings under the california environmental quality act, and planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan and planning code, section 101.1. >> and the author of item number 2 is our newest colleague, supervisor tang. supervisor, welcome to the land use and economic development committee. >> good afternoon, land use committee. i just wanted to present this ordinance here. it's really just a code clean up and nick cal changes made to the planning code. over time as we noted some clarifications and corrections that needed to be made. before i invite anne marie rogers from the planning department to kind of walk you through some of those changes, there is a nonsubstantive amendment that needs to be made on page 93, line 24. basically refers to section 315 of the code which has been deleted recently and is now section 415. so, with that i want to invite
anne marie rogers here. >> thank you, supervisor. and welcome to the board. anne marie rogers from the planning department and i'm here to go over a little bit of this pretty large ordinance that is before you. as you know, the people of the city of san francisco and the board of supervisors care deeply about the planning code and as a result of that it is amended about 50 times per year. that results invariably in some mistakes and some unintended consequences. as supervisor tang described, there is one ordinance found since the introduction last week, and i do have a couple other changes that i'd like to describe as well as just some of the general overall intent of the ordinance. so, here is a handout for the committee. i have some for the public, too. looking at the handout i just
provided, this goes through some of the additional changes that the planning commission heard the ordinance as well as there are a total of three changes we'd like to be introduced today. the first one has been described. i think if i go over item number 1, that will show you the problem that happens with the planning code. so, originally we had proposed to amend section 102.5 because it had a list of specific districts that is always changing. we know districts are added and sometimes it doesn't get up to date. the planning commission made that recommendation last fall. since their recommendation, another ordinance has moved through the process faster than this and it has already deleted the specific list of districts. and then after that change was made, which we appreciated, we revised the ordinance to no longer make that change to 102.5. and then a subsequent third ordinance just came through that actually reinserted this
one specific district, c3osd into that list which no longer exists. so, one of the changes i would like to request from the committee today is that section 102.5 be amended again to delete that specific reference to a district because we no longer even list the specific districts on that chart. and then as described, item number 2 is being requested by the supervisor. item number 3 is just describing how all of our fees are currently by law indexed by the controller to make sure that they are inflation adjusted. so, we inform the public where they might be able to get this list of inflation adjusted item. number 4 is another amendment that i would like to request to the committee today, and this is our intent was to ensure that moving fund were not allowed in the union square area and this goes through an explanation. this code section provided an
exemption from the requirement for moving signs for the union square and we felt that that was unclear. so, the commission asked for that reference to union square to be deleted. in retrospect, in looking at it in more detail, the zoning add more is concerned that that might lead individual to believe that moving signs are allowed in that area. on this item in particular there are many older referenceses in the planning code that prohibit moving signs. so, this is just a technical clarification we hope will make it clear moving signs are not permitted in that area. and on the backside of this chart, i just kind of walk through a couple other issues to describe the type of changes you see in the ordinance. and i can go in great detail. it would be best to hear from you if there are any particular concerns or interests as a committee. >> thank you very much. yes, president chiu. >> just a quick question. the description of the legislation refers to amendments of the zoning map to
remove the [speaker not understood] special use district designation that is incorrectly listed. could you just describe that for the record what you're doing? >> yeah, let's see if i can find -- do you know what section number that is? >> well, no. that was an description i wanted you to -- >> if i could sit down for a second and find that mistake in the document i can walk you through that. >> thanks. >> thank you. supervisor tang, should we open it up for public comment? okay. if there are any public comment on item number 2? please come on up. land use, good afternoon. ♪ for your map eyes only we'll take a city ride [speaker not understood] it's not very new but go ahead and correct the map
just like you do for your city eyes only fix it, won't you and the passion the city you see make it clear for us to see for your city map eyes only >> thank you. is there any other public comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so, are there any other comments or questions apart from what ms. rogers is looking for, colleagues? okay. why don't we, then, before we complete number 2, we'll allow ms. rogers to have time -- take all the time you need, ms. rogers. we'll move to item number 3 and we'll return to item number 2. item number 3.
>> item number 3 is an ordinance amending the health code to correct numbering and clarify provisions of the commercial dog walking ordinance. >> thank you. and this is legislation that i'm sponsoring. colleagues, you'll recall that a little over a year ago we passed legislation that i sponsored to establish a permanent process for commercial dog walkers using city parks and other public property and putting certain rules in place with respect to those dog walkers. we work very closely with the dog walker community and the dog owner community, the spca, various city departments, and came to a pretty strong consensus on the legislation. the legislation will become effective on july 1st. we gave up to 18 months for animal care control to implement the program. i know the department has been working closely with the dog walker community to come up
with regulations that the department will then issue. this legislation today is mostly clean-up language, issues identified by the department as it went through the implementation process. a few notable changes. the legislation clarifies that the maximum leash length allowed for -- since dog walkers are required to carry leashes with them, one per dog, whether or not they are using them at the time, that the maximum leash length allowed is no more than 8 feet. it is a requirement that a million dollars in general liability coverage required by the legislation, that it be in effect for the full term of the permit. there is clarifications around reporting requirements. and several other items as well. in addition, today i am proposing one minor amendment that is not substantive to indicate that for the
grandfathering of dog walkers -- back up. the legislation requires that dog walkers receive a certain minimum amount of training, but if a dog walker has been conducting a business with a business license for at least three years, he or she is grandfathered in and this will change the date by which the three years must have been attained to march 1st of 2013 as opposed to six months before last year. so, that is one minor amendment i would like to offer. and i know that rebecca cuts from animal care control is here. ms. katz, would you like to say anything? ~ >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. as you noted, supervisor, this
is primarily clean-up language as the group that was working on this went through it and determined what areas needed a little bit of clarification. and on that point i do want to acknowledge the deputy director of animal care and control cat brown who has worked hours and hours and had a lot of meetings on this, as you know, animal welfare issues tend to be a little bit of a lightning rod. so, she spent quite a bit of time working on the implementation and what would constitute the guidelines for this, which will be heard before the animal control and welfare commission in may. so, happy to answer any questions you may have, but it really is just clean up. >> great, thank you, ms. [speaker not understood], and thank you for all the work in your department to implement. colleagues, if there are no additional comments, why don't we open up to public comment. i have two public comment cards. sally stevens and gill crizwell. if there are any other members of the public who would like to make public comment, please fill out a card.
ms. stevens. yes, hi, my name is sally stevens, i'm the chair of sf dog. sf dog fully supports this legislation. been involved in it for years and been working with animal care control and i just wanted to thank supervisor wiener for his role in pushing this through and actually getting this legislation after eight years of it kind of sitting on -- nobody doing anything about it. and i also wanted to acknowledge animal care and control in particular deputy director cat brown for the work that she's been doing. i've been involved in the negotiations on how to implement this and have been really useful and everything has been done in a great way. this is how a city should work. i just wanted to again thank supervisor wiener and acc. >> thank you, ms. stevens. mr. crizwell? i don't know if my comments are going to be relevant or not, but i know that it's past. so, i'm here from new district 8 and that's